Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

THE 'YOU CAN'T PROVE IT EITHER WAY" MOVE A bit from draft for my DK book Companion Guide to Philosophy

(this was cut down in published version)

Reasonableness comes in degrees (B heading)

INTRO: Beliefs can be more
or less reasonable. There is, if you like, a scale of reasonableness on which beliefs may be located.
Unfortunately, that reasonableness is a matter of degree is often overlooked.
It’s sometimes assumed that if neither a belief A, nor its denial B, are
conclusively “proved”, then the two beliefs must be more or less equally
reasonable or unreasonable. As we will see, this assumption is false.

MAIN TEXT. Some beliefs are very reasonable indeed. It’s
reasonable for me to believe that the orange on the table in front of me
exists, because I can see it there. It’s also reasonable for me to believe that
the tree outside my house still exists, because it was there when I last
looked, and I have no reason to suppose anyone has removed it in the meantime.
And it is reasonable for me to believe that Japan exists, despite the fact that
I have never actually been there. I possess an enormous amount of evidence that
Japan exists, and hardly any evidence to suggest it doesn’t.

Of course,
despite being highly reasonable, these beliefs could still conceivably turn out
to be false. Perhaps the orange I seem to see before me is an hallucination.
Perhaps the tree in my garden has secretly been removed by pranksters. In the
film The Truman Show, there is a
conspiracy to dupe the main character into thinking he is living his life out
in the real world when in fact everything around him is part of a carefully
managed TV set. Even those he believes to be his closest relatives are, in
truth, merely actors. Perhaps I am the unwitting victim of a similar complex conspiracy
to make me believe Japan exists when in fact it doesn’t.

So let’s
acknowledge I might be mistaken in
holding these beliefs. Certainly, I cannot prove them beyond all doubt. But of
course, this is not to say these beliefs aren’t eminently reasonable. They
clearly are.They lie towards the top of
the scale of reasonableness.

At the
bottom of the scale lies the belief that faeries and goblins exist. This is a
very unreasonable thing to believe. There’s no good evidence these tiny
folk exist and plenty of evidence that they are fictional. Still, it does
remain a remote possibility that these fairy-tale folk exist. We can’t prove
beyond all doubt that they don’t.

Around the
middle of the scale of reasonableness lie beliefs which are neither highly
reasonable nor highly unreasonable. Take the belief that there are intelligent
life forms living somewhere out there in the universe. True, we have no direct
evidence of any such extra-terrestrial intelligence. On the other hand, we know
that intelligent life has evolved on this planet, and we also know that there
are countless other similar planets out there. So it’s not particularly
improbable that there is intelligence out there somewhere.

Beliefs can change their position
on this scale over time. A few decades ago, belief in electrons was fairly reasonable. Given the additional
scientific evidence that’s since been discovered, it is now very reasonable. At
one time belief that the world is flat was perhaps not so unreasonable. It’s
now very unreasonable indeed.

The scale may also vary from one
person to the next. It’s very reasonable for me to believe there is an orange
on the table in front of me, because I can see it there. Perhaps it’s not quite so reasonable for you to believe
there’s an orange there. After all, you can’t see the orange. You simply have
to take my word for it.

Of course, it’s contentious where
some beliefs lie. Take belief in the existence of God, for example. Some
consider belief God is no more reasonable than belief in fairies. Others
believe it is fairly reasonable – at
least as reasonable as, say, belief in extra-terrestrial intelligence. Those
who claim to have had direct experience of God, or who think miracles and so on
constitute fairly good evidence that God exists, may place belief fairly high
up on the scale (even while acknowledging that their belief is not “proved”).

The “You can’t prove it either way” move

Having set up the scale of reasonableness, let’s now look at
a common mistake people make when assessing the reasonableness of a belief.

Sometimes, when someone has been
given very good grounds for supposing a belief B belief is false, they respond
by saying “But you can’t prove B is
false, can you? B might be true!”
They think this shows belief B is still pretty reasonable – perhaps even as
reasonable as the belief that B is false.

Here is an example. Suppose you
have just provided Ted with excellent grounds for supposing his belief that
there are fairies at the bottom of the garden is false. Ted responds “But you
can’t prove there are no faeries down
there, can you?”, as if that showed that his belief is, after all, pretty
reasonable – perhaps even as reasonable as yours.Now perhaps you can’t prove beyond all doubt
that there are no faeries. It’s justpossible that you’re mistaken. Still,
it’s hardly likely, given the evidence. On the available evidence, Ted’s belief
remains downright silly.

Here’s a philosophical example.
Even if we cannot conclusively prove either that God does exist or that he
doesn’t, it doesn’t follow that the belief that God exists is just as
reasonable or unreasonable as the belief that he doesn’t. It might still be the
case that there are very good grounds for supposing God exists, and little
reason to suppose he doesn’t. In which case it is far more reasonable to
believe in God than it is to deny his existence. Conversely, there might be
powerful evidence God doesn’t exist, and little reason to suppose he does. In
which case atheism may be far more reasonable. We
should not allow the fact that neither belief can be conclusively proved to
obscure the fact that one belief might not be far more reasonable than the
other.

Unfortunately, theists sometimes
respond to atheist arguments by pointing out the atheist has not conclusively proved there is no God, as if that
showed belief in God must be fairly reasonable after all. Actually, even if the
atheist can’t conclusively prove there is no God, they might still succeed in
showing that belief in God is very unreasonable indeed – perhaps even as
unreasonable as belief in fairies.

Pointing out the absence of
“proof” against a belief does not show that the belief is, after all, at least
fairly reasonable.

IMAGE OF A RECTANGLE, LEFT HALF RED MIDDLE HALF WHITE AND RIGHT HALF GREEN. IN
LEFT-HAND RED HALF PUT “DISPROVED” IN RIGHT HAND GREEN HALF, PUT “PROVED” IN
MIDDLE BOX PUT “NEITHER PROVED NOR DISPROVED”. Caption: Rather than arranging
beliefs on the scale of reasonableness, we might sort them instead into the
three boxes “proved, “disproved” and “neither proved nor disproved”. We may
then lose sight of the fact that the beliefs in the middle box may still differ
dramatically in terms of their reasonableness.

The ambiguity of “proved” People often talk about a belief being
“proved”, “not proved”, “disproved”, and so on. But what does “proved” mean
here? It can mean a variety of things, including:

Proved beyond all possible doubt

Proved beyond reasonable doubt

Shown to be certain

Shown to be almost certainly true

Shown to be very probably true

Notice that people often talk of “scientific proof” despite
the fact that most, perhaps all, scientific claims are open to at least some doubt.

When using the term “prove” it
is important to be clear what you mean. Take for example, the claim that we
cannot “prove” God exists. It might be true we can’t “prove” beyond all
possible doubt God exists. But then perhaps we can still “prove” God exists in
the sense we can still show his existence to be extremely probable, or to be at least beyond reasonable doubt. Conversely, even if we can’t “prove” beyond all
doubt God does not exist, it doesn’t follow that we can’t show his existence to
be extremely improbable. We should
not allow loose use of the word “proved” to obscure these facts.

IMAGE OF GOD. Caption: Where should we place “God exists”
on the scale of reasonableness? Indeed, should belief in God appear on the scale
at all (but if it doesn’t appear on the scale, whynot?)

NB. Nothing I say here should be taken to commit me to evidentialism - the view that a belief is reasonably held only if it is supported by evidence. Evidentialism is probably false. See here.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

An article to refer to when debating with people who have not thought about what they mean when they talk about proving and disproving things. So many times in the comments below articles some dimwit will post "You can't prove God doesn't exist!": the inference being of course that God therefore must exist.

I'm wondering about that rectangle that's half red, half white, and half green. It sounds like a diagram of Manbearpig.

On the main subject, you may want to address the question of what makes a belief reasonable or unreasonable. People who hold unreasonable beliefs do not, as a rule, regard them as unreasonable; so trying to use the distinction between what can be disproved and what, though not disprovable, is nonetheless unreasonable, is of limited effectiveness in disputation with them.

I'm glad to see you noting the variety of meanings of "prove." I have encountered people who dismiss the notion of scientific proof, saying that nothing can be proved outside of mathematics and logic. But clearly, the term "prove" has a highly specific meaning in those fields, viz., "deductively valid demonstration from axioms." That this is not the common meaning of the term outside of those fields is shown by the use of "prove" and "proof" in forensic contexts. E.g., nobody who speaks of a "burden of proof" is talking about mathematical demonstration.

I think the graphic would be more clear if it went from black to white with linear changes in shades of grey in the middle section. Alternately (if in a full color edition of the publication), you could pick any two frequencies (publishers may be able to suggest the most eye-catching colors)in the spectrum and and show a linear progression between them.

I don't know if you're writing this for an academic or a general audience publication, but if it is for the general public, I'd leave out the footnote on the difference between Evidentialism and Reliabilism. As someone who is not a philosopher, the difference appears like mere semantics to me (given the average reader may be more philosophically savvy than I am).

I would also expand the section beginning with, "The ambiguity of “proved.”" Most of us needed that explained somewhere along the line. How is a mathematical proof different from "proving" something in a court of law, or in history, or science, or better yet everyday experience (when you turn the key, do why do you believe the automobile will start?)?

Other than those couple of personal preference things, I think it's great! I have no training in philosophy, but it's clearly written. I could read it, understand it, and come up with questions based on it.

"Of course, it’s contentious where some beliefs lie. Take belief in "infinity", for example...Mathematicians claim to have had direct experience of "infinity", think mathematical calculations and so on constitute fairly good evidence that "infinity" exists, so place this belief fairly high up on the scale (even while acknowledging that their belief in "infinity" is not “proved”).

But, sure as hell can't see any "reasoning" required for the latter...

So which proposition is more reasonable?

Your questions intrigued me, so I am going to have a go at answering them.

I'll start with 2/

As far as I know, the Earth existed 5 minutes ago. I also know that practically everyone I ask if this is true will agree with me. I know that there are a tiny percentage of people who lack short term memory and so may not be able to answer the question. Because I have a rough understanding of why lacking short term memory may adversely affect these people's answers, I think I can discount such answers. I therefore think it is highly reasonable to accept that the Earth existed 5 minutes ago.

Now I'll tackle 1/

I have no personal experience of the Earth existing 300,000 years ago. I'm not a scientist, but I do have a worldview which accepts that the scientific method is valid. The scientific consensus is that the Earth existed 300,000 years ago, with little controversy. I therefore believe it is reasonable to believe the Earth existed 300,000 years ago. I understand that the scientific consensus can change from time to time, that my reasoning relies upon me interpreting information supplied by scientists, and it is unlikely I'll ever be in a position to confirm this fact for myself. I therefore call my position reasonable, but not highly reasonable.

According to my perspective, 2/ is more reasonable than 1/.

There's nothing in Stephen's post to say that others may not differ in what they view as more or less reasonable. A Young Earth Creationist would look at 1/, realise it is not consistent with Biblical literalism, and reject 1/ as unreasonable. I think they would still be able to agree with me that 2/ is highly reasonable. Furthermore I believe that they would agree with Stephen's central point that beliefs are more or less reasonable. We would both believe that 2/ is more reasonable than 1/, although clearly our reasoning to reach this conclusion will differ.

What "reasons" make you come to the conclusion that the earth existed 5 minutes ago?

That you can see it?

That you can feel it?

Would you say that these are "reasonable" grounds for such a belief?

I mean, seeing is non-cognitive, feeling is non-cognitive...so where is the cognitive "reasoning" that determines whether the earth existed 5 minutes ago? The fact that your senses are telling you this?

Is this "reasonable"? i.e. is any reasoning used to come to this conclusion?

You wrote it yourself..."personal experience"...is experience (i.e. the senses) reasonable?

This is not the same way you would reason the earth existed 300,000 years ago? Because here, you are using "reasoning"...

I cannot reach the conclusion that the Earth existed 5 minutes ago without using my memory, and applying that memory to an understanding of what "5 minutes ago" means. Both memory and understanding are parts of cognition, so I would say I am doing some reasoning to get to that conclusion.

It may not seem very hard, but no child is born with an innate understanding of "5 minutes ago". Therefore it has to be learnt, and to use it cognition must used.

Are you conceding my points and introducing a new topic (which would be highly reasonable of you), or are you changing the subject because you don't wish to concede the points (which would be highly unreasonable on your part)?

It is Familiar memory that informs your Retrospective memory that gives you the illusion that you are using "reason" when you attempt to answer the question concerning the existence of the Earth five minutes ago.

A simple technique to uncover these types of propositions is to use negatives, i.e.

"I don't know the Earth existed 5 minutes ago."

Just as equivalent would be:

"I don't know I have a head."

When you look at the negative propositions like this, they are simply non-sensical...which usually means the positive of the proposition are also non-sensical.

Popular Posts

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has
had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic
world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the
UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that
there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression,
a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human
concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most
of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact
remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend
to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism,
understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat
vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism
would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of independent ev…

Here is a first half only of a rough draft of a chapter for someone else's book. Feedback please...

Theme is Humanism: reason, science and skepticism

What are science and reason? Humanists
expound the virtues of science and reason. But what are science and reason? And
we should we think it wise to rely on them? By
science, I shall mean that approach to finding out about reality based on the
scientific method. This is a method that was fully developed only a few hundred
years ago. Science, as I’ll use the term here, is a comparatively recent
invention, its development owing a great deal to 16th and 17th Century thinkers
such as the philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626). So what
is the scientific method? Here’s a rough sketch. Scientists collect data
through observation and experiment. They formulate hypotheses and broader
theories about the nature of reality to account for what they observe.
Crucially, they then test their
theories. Scientists derive from their theories predictions th…